Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 6, 2026
Utilizing Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Improve Language Function in Stroke Patients with Chronic Non-fluent Aphasia
Published on: July 2, 2013
High-Intensity Aphasia Intervention Is Minimally Fatiguing in Chronic Aphasia: An Analysis of Participant
John E Pierce1,2, Robert Cavanaugh3, Sam Harvey1,4
1Centre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation (J.E.P., L.N., M.H., A.M.F., M.C., C.W., M.L.R., S.H., L.T., E.G., D.A.C., D.C.), Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Background:
High-intensity therapy is recommended in current treatment guidelines for chronic poststroke aphasia. Yet, little is known about fatigue levels induced by treatment, which could interfere with rehabilitation outcomes. We analyzed fatigue experienced by people with chronic aphasia (>6 months) during high-dose interventions at 2 intensities.
Methods:
A retrospective observational analysis was conducted on self-rated fatigue levels of people with chronic aphasia (N=173) collected during a previously published large randomized controlled trial of 2 treatments: constraint-induced aphasia therapy plus and multi-modality aphasia therapy. Interventions were administered at a higher intensity (30 hours over 2 weeks) or lower intensity (30 hours over 5 weeks). Participants rated their fatigue on an 11-point scale before and after each day of therapy. Data were analyzed using Bayesian ordinal multilevel models. Specifically, we considered changes in self-rated participant fatigue across a therapy day and over the intervention period.
Results:
Data from 144 participants was analyzed. Participants were English speakers from Australia or New Zealand (mean age, 62 [range, 18-88] years) with 102 men and 42 women. Most had mild (n=115) or moderate (n=52) poststroke aphasia. Median ratings of the level of fatigue by people with aphasia were low (1 on a 0-10-point scale) at the beginning of the day. Ratings increased slightly (+1.0) each day after intervention, with marginally lower increases in the lower intensity schedule. There was no evidence of accumulating fatigue over the 2- or 5-week interventions.
Conclusions:
Findings suggest that intensive intervention was not associated with large increases in fatigue for people with chronic aphasia enrolled in the COMPARE trial (Constraint-Induced or Multimodality Personalised Aphasia Rehabilitation). Fatigue did not change across the course of the intervention. This study provides evidence that intensive treatment was minimally fatiguing for stroke survivors with chronic aphasia, suggesting that fatigue is not a barrier to high-intensity treatment.
